Sosi, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 11 (08 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 11

PBRA
Sosi, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 11 (08 January 2026)
[2026] PBRA 11 · 2025-11-17
[1]This is an application by Sosi (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 17 November 2025 not to direct release.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2025) (the Parole Board Rules) provides that applications for reconsideration may be made in eligible cases (as set out in rule 28(2)) either on the basis(a) that the decision contains an error of law,(b) that it is irrational and/or(c) that it is procedurally unfair. This is an eligible case, and the application was made in time.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier, the decision of the oral hearing panel dated the 17 November 2025, the response by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) and the application for reconsideration dated 10 December 2025. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 10 December 2025.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are as set out below. Background[6]The Applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. He was sentenced on 11 April 2011. He was 22 years old at the time of sentence. He was 36 years old at the time of the current oral hearing. He was initially released on licence by the Parole Board in February of 2020. He was recalled in February of 2024 and returned to custody in June of 2024.[7]The facts of the index offence were that the Applicant in 2010 went to a residence where the victim was living with his partner and child. The door was kicked in. The Applicant then shouted, " armed police " and pointed a black handgun towards the victim. The victim ran back into the premises. A shot was fired leaving a bullet hole in the doorway. The Applicant threatened to shoot the child as well. Later the Applicant indicated that he had borrowed the gun from a drug dealer. The police indicated that it had been used in several shooting incidents in North London. In addition to the threats made to the victim as noted above, the Applicant's home was searched by the police on a later date and a loaded revolver with ammunition was found in the premises. These offences formed a group of offences which resulted in the indeterminate sentence for public protection.[8]During the course of the Applicant's prison sentence, he absconded from an open prison and was at large for approximately one year. He received a further sentence of imprisonment for absconding. The Applicant's recall to prison was triggered by the police notification that allegations of domestic violence had been made against the Applicant. Current parole review[9]The referral from the Respondent to the Parole Board requested the Parole Board to consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a direction for release. If not whether he would be suitable for a recommendation for transfer to an open prison.[10]The oral hearing panel consisted of an independent chair of the Parole Board accompanied by two independent members of the Parole Board. Evidence was received at the oral hearing from the Applicant's Community Offender Manager (COM), the Applicant's Prison Offender Manager (POM) and a Prison instructed psychologist. The Applicant himself also gave evidence and was legally represented. A dossier consisting of 717 pages was considered. The Relevant Law[11]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 17 November 2025 the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for a progressive move to open conditions. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[12]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules provides the types of decision which are eligible for reconsideration. Decisions concerning whether the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence are eligible for reconsideration whether made by a paper panel (rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or by an oral hearing panel after an oral hearing (rule 25(1)) or by an oral hearing panel which makes the decision on the papers (rule 21(7)). Decisions concerning the termination, amendment, or dismissal of an IPP licence are also eligible for reconsideration (rule 31(6) or rule 31(6A)).[13]Rule 28(2) of the Parole Board Rules provides the sentence types which are eligible for reconsideration. These are indeterminate sentences (rule 28(2)(a)), extended sentences (rule 28(2)(b)), certain types of determinate sentence subject to initial release by the Parole Board (rule 28(2)(c)) and serious terrorism sentences (rule 28(2)(d)).[14]A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. This has been confirmed by the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Barclay [2019] PBRA 6 . Irrationality[15]The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent tribunal on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene in these words " if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere". The same test applies to a reconsideration panel when determining an application on the basis of irrationality.[16]In R (DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board 2018 EWHC 694 (Admin ) a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board hearings in these words at para 116 "the issue is whether the release decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. "[17]In R(on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin) Saini J set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law which was "to test the decision maker's ultimate conclusion against the evidence before it and to ask whether the conclusion can (with due deference and with regard to the panel's expertise) be safely justified on the basis of that evidence, particularly in a context where anxious scrutiny needs to be applied)". This test was adopted by a Divisional Court in the case of R(on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice) -v- the Parole Board 2022 EWHC 1282 (Admin).[18]As was made clear by Saini J this is not a different test to the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of and application of the Wednesbury test in Parole hearings as explained in DSD was binding on Saini J.[19]It follows from those principles that in considering an application for reconsideration the reconsideration panel will not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses.[20]Further while the views of the professional witnesses must be properly considered by a panel deciding on release, the panel is not bound to accept their assessment. The panel must however make clear in its reasons why it is disagreeing with the assessment of the witnesses. Procedural unfairness[21]Procedural unfairness means that there was some procedural impropriety or unfairness resulting in the proceedings being fundamentally flawed and therefore, producing a manifestly unfair, flawed, or unjust result. These issues (which focus on how the decision was made) are entirely separate to the issue of irrationality which focusses on the actual decision.[22]In summary an Applicant seeking to complain of procedural unfairness under rule 28 must satisfy me that either:(a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed in the making of the relevant decision;(b) they were not given a fair hearing;(c) they were not properly informed of the case against them;(d) they were prevented from putting their case properly;(e) the panel did not properly record the reasons for any findings or conclusion; and/or(f) the panel was not impartial.[23]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Error of law[24]An administrative decision is unlawful under the broad heading of illegality if the panel: a) misinterprets a legal instrument relevant to the function being performed; b) has no legal authority to make the decision; c) fails to fulfil a legal duty; d) exercises discretionary power for an extraneous purpose; e) takes into account irrelevant considerations or fails to take account of relevant considerations; and/or f) improperly delegates decision-making power.[25]The task in evaluating whether a decision is illegal is essentially one of construing the content and scope of the instrument conferring the duty or power upon the panel. The instrument will normally be the Parole Board Rules, but it may also be an enunciated policy, or some other common law power. Other[26]The test to be applied when considering the question of transfer to open conditions is the subject of a well-established line of authorities going back to R (Hill) v Parole Board [2011] EWHC 809 (Admin) and including R (Rowe) v Parole Board [2013] EWHC 3838 (Admin) , R (Hutt) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 1041 (Admin) . The test for transfer to open conditions is different from the test for release on licence and the two decisions must be approached separately and the correct test applied in each case. The panel must identify the factors which have led it to make its decision. The criteria are now set out in the Secretary of State's Directions to the Parole Board of the 1 August 2023.[27]Before recommending the transfer of a prisoner to open conditions, the Parole Board must consider all information before it, including any written or oral evidence obtained by the Board and whether the following criteria are met: · the prisoner has made sufficient progress during the sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm (in circumstances where the prisoner in open conditions may be in the community, unsupervised under licensed temporary release); and · the prisoner is assessed as presenting a low risk of abscond.[28]The Parole Board must recommend a move to open conditions only where it is satisfied that the two criteria are met.[29]In Oyston [2000] PLR 45 , at paragraph 47 Lord Bingham said:
" It seems to me generally desirable that the Board should identify in broad terms the matters judged by the Board as pointing towards and against a continuing risk of offending and the Board's reasons for striking the balance that it does. Needless to say, the letter should summarise the considerations which have in fact led to the final decision. It would be wrong to prescribe any standard form of Decision Letter and it would be wrong to require elaborate or impeccable standards of draftsmanship. "
Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[30]Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That means that, even if an error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness is established, the Reconsideration Member considering the case is not obliged to direct reconsideration of the panel's decision. The Reconsideration Member can decline to make such a direction having taken into account the particular circumstances of the case, the potential for a different decision to be reached by a new panel, and any delay caused by a grant of reconsideration. That discretion must of course be exercised in a way which is fair to both parties. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State[31]The Respondent offered no representations. Background[32]The Applicant's index offences are noted above. The Applicant was recalled four years after his release. The probation service had been notified that the Applicant was wanted for allegations relating to a female victim. These allegations included criminal damage, non-fatal strangulation and the threat to throw acid in the face of the victim. The Applicant denied any allegations of domestic violence. The panel considered a report from a social services department which contained detailed material relating to the allegations. On the strength of the evidence in the dossier, and having heard the evidence from the Applicant, the panel applied the legal test relating to allegations as set out in the case of Pearce. The panel concluded that the Applicant's account was not credible. The panel identified active concerns in relation to the Applicant's propensity to behave violently towards female partners as well as the Applicant's attitude towards female partners generally.[33]A further issue related to disclosing of relationships. The Applicant denied being in a relationship with the partner. He distinguished between an intimate relationship and a sexual relationship. He accepted that he had had a sexual relationship with the partner but maintained that he was not obliged to disclose that relationship because it was sexual and not intimate.[34]Within the oral hearing the panel took account of the fact that all professionals took the view that the Applicant's risk could not be safely managed in the community. This view included an assessment by a prison commissioned psychologist. The view was that the Applicant needed to undertake further behavioural work to address his propensity to be violent to partners and to place children at risk. The Applicant has made a personal application for reconsideration. The following grounds were extracted from the narrative application submitted by the Applicant. Ground one[35]The Applicant submits that he had not been convicted of any offences since his release on licence and therefore has demonstrated lawful and compliant behaviour. Discussion[36]Although the Applicant submits that he had demonstrated " lawful and compliant behaviour " the panel disagreed with this view. The panel noted that the Applicant had not been open with professionals in particular about a relationship. That relationship had resulted in serious allegations which led to the partner moving to a refuge due to concerns about safety and potential harm from the Applicant. The panel also took the view that the Applicant had failed to hand himself in to the authorities, knowing that he had been recalled, which was not an indication of lawful and compliant behaviour. Finally, the panel took account of the fact that there were allegations from two different partners in relation to negative behaviour. The panel were entitled to take account of allegations which did not necessarily result in criminal convictions. Applying the case of Pearce , the panel came to the conclusion that the allegations were likely to have been true on the balance of probabilities and therefore placed weight upon those allegations. The panel did not accept the Applicant's account in relation to the status of the relationships. The panel had an overall concern about the Applicant's propensity to behave violently towards female partners. For these reasons I reject the submission that the Applicant had acted with compliance and lawfulness during his time in the community. I do not therefore find that this amounts to irrational decision-making by the panel. Ground 2[37]The Applicant submits that he was not informed of the need to report sexual relationships, unless they were " long-term or serious ". The Applicant therefore submits that he was misled by the probation service about the requirements of his licence conditions namely to disclose any relationships. Discussion[38]I have considered the licence conditions which would have been made available to the Applicant on his release from prison. The licence conditions clearly indicate that the Applicant was obliged to notify his supervising officer of any " developing personal relationships ". The licence condition contains no qualifications about whether that relationship was sexual or whether it should be long or short-term. I am not persuaded that it is credible that a probation officer would have advised the Applicant that he was not required to report sexual relationships given the fact that the primary concern regarding risk related to the Applicants behaviour in intimate relationships. In any event the requirement to abide by licence conditions falls squarely upon the Applicant who was obliged to ensure that he complies with those requirements. I am not therefore persuaded that this amounts to a ground for reconsideration. Ground 3[39]The Applicant submits that proper account was not taken of the fact that the Applicant is supporting his father who is seriously ill and needs daily support. Discussion[40]Although there will clearly be sympathy for the Applicant and his father in relation to illness, the requirements relating to a Parole Board hearing relate only to the risk of serious harm or otherwise posed by the prisoner. The panel would therefore not be entitled to consider directing release on the basis of the illness of a family member. The only basis upon which the Parole Board panel were permitted to proceed was the codified test for release as set out in the panel decision. This ground does not therefore amount to a basis for reconsideration. Ground 4[41]The Applicant submits that he should not have been given an IPP sentence for a single isolated incident. Discussion[42]A Parole Board panel are not entitled to look behind the basis of the imposition of any sentence. The imposition of sentences is entirely a matter for the criminal court and the appeal process if appropriate. Ground 5[43]The Applicant submits that the requirement to undertake a behavioural course could be completed in the community and that he should not be detained for the purpose of undertaking a course. Discussion[44]The position relating to the behavioural course was that this was being suggested by the professionals as a way of demonstrating that the Applicant may be able to manage his risk of serious harm (in particular to partners) in the future. A Parole Board panel is not entitled to direct any form of behavioural intervention, although suggestions are often made within a panel decision as to the possible next steps relating to progression. In this case the panel decision was that the Applicant's risk of serious harm was imminent and therefore it is entirely consistent that the panel concluded that the codified test for release was not met. I do not find that this is a ground for reconsideration. Ground 6[45]Proper account was not taken by the panel of the fact that the professionals accepted that the Applicants risk was not imminent and would only arise in the context of a relationship. The Applicant argues that he is not in a relationship and would inform the probation service if he became involved in one. Discussion[46]In the panel decision it is noted that both the Applicant's POM and the Applicants COM took the view that the Applicant's risk of serious harm was imminent particularly if he was to enter into a relationship. The panel also in their concluding remarks indicated that their assessment was that the Applicant's risk of serious harm was imminent hence their decision to reject a direction for release. In the light of the fact that the panel concluded that the Applicant's risk of serious harm, particularly in relationships, was imminent I do not find that this ground amounts to a basis for reconsideration. Ground 7[47]The Applicant argues that he acted transparently when he received a non-molestation order and informed the probation service about the non-molestation order. Discussion[48]At page 638 of the dossier it is noted that the probation service took the view that the Applicant had not disclosed the non-molestation order to them. However, the fundamental issue in relation to the non-molestation order was the fact that it had been made at all. The underlying concerns in relation to this case were matters relating to domestic violence and the safety of partners and children. The disclosing of any orders made against the Applicant was obviously a requirement of his general obligation to be of good behaviour under licence. Again, I am not persuaded that this ground amounts to a basis for reconsideration. Decision[49]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Stephen Dawson 08 January 2026